Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Democratic Answers to Complex Questions – An Epistemic Perspective

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses a problem for theories of epistemic democracy. In a decision on a complex issue which can be decomposed into several parts, a collective can use different voting procedures: Either its members vote on each sub-question and the answers that gain majority support are used as premises for the conclusion on the main issue (premise based-procedure, pbp), or the vote is conducted on the main issue itself (conclusion-based procedure, cbp). The two procedures can lead to different results. We investigate which of these procedures is better as a truth-tracker, assuming that there exists a true answer to be reached. On the basis of the Condorcet jury theorem, we show that the pbp is universally superior if the objective is to reach truth for the right reasons. If one instead is after truth for whatever reasons, right or wrong, there will be cases in which the cbp is more reliable, even though, for the most part, the pbp still is to be preferred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • P.J. Borland (1989) ArticleTitleMajority systems and the Condorcet Jury Theorem Statistician 38 181–189

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Brennan (2001) ArticleTitleCollective coherence International Review of Law and Economics 21 197–211 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0144-8188(01)00056-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Chapman (1998a) ArticleTitleLaw, incommensurability, and conceptually sequenced argument University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 1487–1582

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Chapman (1998b) ArticleTitleMore easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational Social choice Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18 293–329 Occurrence Handle10.1093/ojls/18.2.293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Cohen (1986) ArticleTitleAn epistemic conception of democracy Ethics 97 26–38 Occurrence Handle10.1086/292815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condorcet, J.A. de (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix, l’Imprimerie Royale, Paris, partly translated into English in McLean and Urken (1995).

  • Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.

  • D. Estlund (1990) ArticleTitleDemocracy without preference Philosophical review 49 397–424 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2185349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Estlund (1993) Making truth safe for democracy David Copp Jean Hampton John E. Roemer (Eds) The Idea of Democracy Cambridge University Press New York 71–100

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Estlund (1994) ArticleTitleOpinion leaders, independence and Condorcet’s Jury Theorem Theory and Decision 36 131–162 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01079210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. Deliberative Democracy, In: James Bohman and Willian Rehg (Eds.), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 173–204.

  • D. Estlund (1998) ArticleTitleThe insularity of the reasonable: Why political liberalism must admit the truth Ethics 108 252–275 Occurrence Handle10.1086/233804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.I. Goldman (1979) What is justified belief G.S. Pappas (Eds) Justification and Knowledge Reidel Dordrecht 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Grofman G. Owen S.L. Feld (1983) ArticleTitleThirteen theorems in search of the truth Theory and Decision 15 261–278 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00125672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. List R.E. Goodin (2001) ArticleTitleEpistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem Journal of Political Philosophy 9 277–306 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9760.00128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.A. Kornhauser (1992a) ArticleTitleModelling collegial courts. I. path-dependence International Review of Law and Economics 12 169–185 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0144-8188(92)90034-O

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.A. Kornhauser (1992b) ArticleTitleModelling collegial courts. II. Legal doctrine Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 8 441–470

    Google Scholar 

  • L.A. Kornhauser L.G. Sager (1986) ArticleTitleUnpacking the court Yale Law Journal 96 92–117

    Google Scholar 

  • L.A. Kornhauser L.G. Sager (1993) ArticleTitleThe one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts California Law Review 81 1–59

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean I., Urken, A.B. (translators and editors) (1995). Classics of social choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  • G. Owen B. Grofman S.L. Feld (1989) ArticleTitleProving a distribution-free generalization of the Condorcet Jury Theorem Mathematical Social Sciences 17 1–16 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0165-4896(89)90012-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Pearl (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference EditionNumber2 Morgan Kaufmann San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11 (supplement 1 of Nous 35), 268–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P., & Rabinowicz, W. (2001). The Jury Theorem and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11(supplement 1 of Nous 35), appendix to Pettit (2001), pp. 295–299.

  • Rousseau, J.-J. 1997 (1762). The social contract. In: Victor Gourevich and Quentin Skinner (Eds.), The ‘Social Contract’ and other later political writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Lund University, Kungshuset, Lundagard, 222 22, Lund, Sweden

    Luc Bovens & Wlodek Rabinowicz

  2. London School of Economics, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, Houghton Street, London, WC2A2AE, UK

    Luc Bovens

Authors
  1. Luc Bovens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wlodek Rabinowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wlodek Rabinowicz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bovens, L., Rabinowicz, W. Democratic Answers to Complex Questions – An Epistemic Perspective. Synthese 150, 131–153 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-0005-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-0005-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation